Gerrymandering: Democrats should...

[Green Line]

They should absolutely not gerrymander, regardless of what Republicans do.  Set a good example for the rest of the nation and maybe some GOP states will reciprocate.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

They should absolutely not gerrymander, regardless of what Republicans do.  Set a good example for the rest of the nation and maybe some GOP states will reciprocate.

2010 wants its talking points back.

[7,052,770]

They should absolutely not gerrymander, regardless of what Republicans do.  Set a good example for the rest of the nation and maybe some GOP states will reciprocate.

LOL what?

[Xing]

I’m split on this. On the one hand, I think gerrymandering is wrong, regardless of which party is doing it, but it’s not like Republicans are going to “learn their lesson” if Democrats take the “moral high ground.” I think Democrats need to push to abolish gerrymandering, but they’ll look hypocritical if they continue to do it, but if they allow Republicans to do it without retaliating, it’s less likely Democrats will have the numbers in Congress to make it necessary. It’s a similar problem as campaign finance reform.

[WD]

#2, no doubt about it.

[Non Swing Voter]

They should absolutely not gerrymander, regardless of what Republicans do.  Set a good example for the rest of the nation and maybe some GOP states will reciprocate.

No, definitely no, full stop no to this.

[7,052,770]

I’m split on this. On the one hand, I think gerrymandering is wrong, regardless of which party is doing it, but it’s not like Republicans are going to “learn their lesson” if Democrats take the “moral high ground.” I think Democrats need to push to abolish gerrymandering, but they’ll look hypocritical if they continue to do it, but if they allow Republicans to do it without retaliating, it’s less likely Democrats will have the numbers in Congress to make it necessary. It’s a similar problem as campaign finance reform.

California, Illinois, and New York (maybe others too) should publish gerrymanders that are so extreme and disgusting that Republicans have a clear incentive to agree to ban it. That's the only way it will ever happen.

Analogy - hitting people is wrong, but if you have a bully beating you up every day, and punching back can lead to a new understanding where neither of you hits each other, you should do it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I’m split on this. On the one hand, I think gerrymandering is wrong, regardless of which party is doing it, but it’s not like Republicans are going to “learn their lesson” if Democrats take the “moral high ground.” I think Democrats need to push to abolish gerrymandering, but they’ll look hypocritical if they continue to do it, but if they allow Republicans to do it without retaliating, it’s less likely Democrats will have the numbers in Congress to make it necessary. It’s a similar problem as campaign finance reform.

Don't you hear the Rs on this Forum say Safe R House, FL/GA/TX are are safe R no matter what and R will gerrymander those 7 seats R, and there is no stopping them on a 5/4 Conservative Crt.

Dems must return the favor in Cali, NY, PA, MU. Cali is an Indy commission but they appointed by Gov Newsom that want gerrymandering districts to secure his reelection and so will Pritzker, Whitmer and Cuomo

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I’m split on this. On the one hand, I think gerrymandering is wrong, regardless of which party is doing it, but it’s not like Republicans are going to “learn their lesson” if Democrats take the “moral high ground.” I think Democrats need to push to abolish gerrymandering, but they’ll look hypocritical if they continue to do it, but if they allow Republicans to do it without retaliating, it’s less likely Democrats will have the numbers in Congress to make it necessary. It’s a similar problem as campaign finance reform.

There is nothing hypocritical about supporting mutual disarmament while opposing unilateral disarmament. Framing it in those terms should make it clear to anyone who is a reasonable person and is considering the issue in good faith. It won't persuade other such people, but any such other people are unpersuadable about anything in the first place.

Another thing that ideally Dems should do while drawing gerrymanders is to join federal lawsuits arguing that partisan gerrymanders are unconstitutional. For example, New York Dems should draw a 25-0 map, and then if there is a lawsuit challenging a 25-0 map of New York, the New York Dems/attorney general/etc should write briefs in support of the challengers, and tell the courts that the Dem gerrymander is indeed unconstitutional and should be overturned (along with the gerrymanders in other states such as GA, TX, IN, FL, etc, as wall as in other Dem states like IL and MD). This is all easily explainable as a collective action problem which results from individual-level incentives not being aligned properly by the system.

[Xing]

I’m split on this. On the one hand, I think gerrymandering is wrong, regardless of which party is doing it, but it’s not like Republicans are going to “learn their lesson” if Democrats take the “moral high ground.” I think Democrats need to push to abolish gerrymandering, but they’ll look hypocritical if they continue to do it, but if they allow Republicans to do it without retaliating, it’s less likely Democrats will have the numbers in Congress to make it necessary. It’s a similar problem as campaign finance reform.

California, Illinois, and New York (maybe others too) should publish gerrymanders that are so extreme and disgusting that Republicans have a clear incentive to agree to ban it. That's the only way it will ever happen.

Analogy - hitting people is wrong, but if you have a bully beating you up every day, and punching back can lead to a new understanding where neither of you hits each other, you should do it.

Or, the bully will hit you even harder, and maybe try to gang up on you with multiple people. Republicans might go to even further extremes with gerrymandering if Democrats make absurd maps.

[WD]

I’m split on this. On the one hand, I think gerrymandering is wrong, regardless of which party is doing it, but it’s not like Republicans are going to “learn their lesson” if Democrats take the “moral high ground.” I think Democrats need to push to abolish gerrymandering, but they’ll look hypocritical if they continue to do it, but if they allow Republicans to do it without retaliating, it’s less likely Democrats will have the numbers in Congress to make it necessary. It’s a similar problem as campaign finance reform.

California, Illinois, and New York (maybe others too) should publish gerrymanders that are so extreme and disgusting that Republicans have a clear incentive to agree to ban it. That's the only way it will ever happen.

Analogy - hitting people is wrong, but if you have a bully beating you up every day, and punching back can lead to a new understanding where neither of you hits each other, you should do it.

Or, the bully will hit you even harder, and maybe try to gang up on you with multiple people. Republicans might go to even further extremes with gerrymandering if Democrats make absurd maps.

Then Democrats can just go even further with their maps in NY, IL, get rid of the commission in CA (Via Ballot Measure)...and so on. If a bully hits back harder, you do the same.

[Yellowhammer]

Gerrymandering Democrats out of existence is the fairest thing we can do, since they are an unfair party. They should be eliminated from legislative office wherever we can. Republicans should have 435/435 seats in the House — that would be true fairness.
Bye Jim Cooper, Tim Ryan, Marcy Kaptur, Sharice Davids, Emmanuel Cleaver, Sanford Bishop, etc.

[lfromnj]

Gerrymandering Democrats out of existence is the fairest thing we can do, since they are an unfair party. They should be eliminated from legislative office wherever we can. Republicans should have 435/435 seats in the House — that would be true fairness.
Bye Jim Cooper, Tim Ryan, Marcy Kaptur, Sharice Davids, Emmanuel Cleaver, Sanford Bishop, etc.

David's isnt losing, the Kansas supreme court is more liberal than Sotomayor.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Back in my more idealistic and naive days I used to advocate for nonpartisan redistricting, even in Democratic controlled states for the sake of fairness. Hell, I even wrote a 25 page research paper on redistricting reform in a college public administration class I took. But since 2014 or so I am all about fighting fire with fire and gerrymandering the f*** out of the places we can! F*** the GOP! You made me into the jaded cynic I am! Either disarm with us, or reap the consequences of the polarization you have sown!

Democrats should be wary of districts that could backfire though. They shouldn't end up in the situation that eventually happened to the New Jersey districts, for instance. So sometimes Democrats might need to bite the bullet and make an extra Republican vote sink district, as should be done here in my state.

[walleye26]

I think a nonpartisan system wouldn’t be completely a bad idea assuming 1)it is a bipartisan group who truly does draw legit fair maps, and 2) actually has power (by which I mean the legislature can’t veto down their maps). I mean, I hate both sides equally and I can draw a fair Wisconsin map that is 2 Safe Dem, 2 Safe R, and 4 competitive.

[Coastal Elitist]

lol the idea that democrats are against gerrymandering is ridiculous. They fought hard to defeat California's commission and yet the people decided a commission was better. Also Democrats have gerrymandered for years when they were in control. Does everyone here think it was invented post 1994 or something. When Democrats gerrymandered Texas and Georgia for years no one cared but when Republicans turn around and do it right back it's a big problem, come on.

Also regarding CA there's no way 52-0 or any of that nonsense will happen the legislature can't overrule the commission.

[TopShelfGoal]

Laying down the arms while the other side is loading up their tanks and AK-47s is so dumb. Democrats need to Gerrymander the hell out of the states they control.

[Nyvin]

lol the idea that democrats are against gerrymandering is ridiculous. They fought hard to defeat California's commission and yet the people decided a commission was better. Also Democrats have gerrymandered for years when they were in control. Does everyone here think it was invented post 1994 or something. When Democrats gerrymandered Texas and Georgia for years no one cared but when Republicans turn around and do it right back it's a big problem, come on.

Also regarding CA there's no way 52-0 or any of that nonsense will happen the legislature can't overrule the commission.

Maybe in the past, but in the current day and age, it really is the Democrats that push for redistricting reform a lot more than the Republicans.

Democrats in NH passed a bill that would've created independent commissions for redistricting but Gov Sununu vetoed it.

I agree a 52-0 CA map won't happen.

[Del Tachi]

lol, and what can Dems realistically achieve in NY?  A 21-4 that cuts Katko, Mallitokis  and King's old seat?  That's tricky to do while trying to shore up Bridinsi, and NY Dems may prefer cutting Bowman for cleaner ethnic lines in NYC over going for maximum partisan advantage.

You can do 23-2 in New York even without spaghetti-strip districts from Manhattan, with none of the Dem districts anything below D+4 or D+5 or so. If you do spaghetti-strips from Manhattan you can go 25-0 (or 26-0 if it ends up with 26 districts). You can do similarly in other states like IL/CA. Overall if you get to no-holds-barred extreme blood sport gerrymandering, Dems have more to gain in states like IL/NY/CA than Republicans do in all the little GOP-controlled rinky-dink states combined. CA alone could be a Dem gain of 10-11 seats, which pretty much offsets alone everything the GOP can do anywhere else (at least as long as the VRA remains and limits how much the GOP can do).

1) Seats that are only D+4 or D+5 are gone in a 2010-sized wave for the GOP

2) 52-0 in California or 25-0 in New York have an absolutely 0% chance of happening because the VRA and the Democrats' diverse coalition protects maj-min inner-city districts that Democrats can't unpack.  Black and Latino Democrats in state legislatures would never assent to maps that eliminated minority representation in favor of maximum partisan advantage, see: Lacy Clay, 2010.

[lfromnj]

lol, and what can Dems realistically achieve in NY?  A 21-4 that cuts Katko, Mallitokis  and King's old seat?  That's tricky to do while trying to shore up Bridinsi, and NY Dems may prefer cutting Bowman for cleaner ethnic lines in NYC over going for maximum partisan advantage.

You can do 23-2 in New York even without spaghetti-strip districts from Manhattan, with none of the Dem districts anything below D+4 or D+5 or so. If you do spaghetti-strips from Manhattan you can go 25-0 (or 26-0 if it ends up with 26 districts). You can do similarly in other states like IL/CA. Overall if you get to no-holds-barred extreme blood sport gerrymandering, Dems have more to gain in states like IL/NY/CA than Republicans do in all the little GOP-controlled rinky-dink states combined. CA alone could be a Dem gain of 10-11 seats, which pretty much offsets alone everything the GOP can do anywhere else (at least as long as the VRA remains and limits how much the GOP can do).

1) Seats that are only D+4 or D+5 are gone in a 2010-sized wave for the GOP

2) 52-0 in California or 25-0 in New York have an absolutely 0% chance of happening because the VRA and the Democrats' diverse coalition protects maj-min inner-city districts that Democrats can't unpack.  Black and Latino Democrats in state legislatures would never assent to maps that eliminated minority representation in favor of maximum partisan advantage, see: Lacy Clay, 2010.

D+4 or D+5 means on average Biden +12-14 although your latter point is mostly true.

[Del Tachi]

D+4 or D+5 means on average Biden +12-14 although your latter point is mostly true.

A D+5 district would finish R+2 in a 2010-type environment (R+7)

[lfromnj]

D+4 or D+5 means on average Biden +12-14 although your latter point is mostly true.

A D+5 district would finish R+2 in a 2010-type environment (R+7)

D+4/D+5 means Cook PVI which means its vote share of the past 2 elections. So D+5 means on average Clinton and Obama got 5% more of the vote in that district than they got nationwide. So no a Biden +13 district probably wouldn't flip in a R+2 environment.


Here are the D+4 or more seats that flipped in 2014

Iowa 1st- definitely had some of the trends that manifested in 2016
NY 24- Katko is an electoral titan.
IL 10th- Rauner's campaign probably had some coattails here and it flipped back to the D's in 2016.

[Del Tachi]

D+4 or D+5 means on average Biden +12-14 although your latter point is mostly true.

A D+5 district would finish R+2 in a 2010-type environment (R+7)

D+4/D+5 means Cook PVI which means its vote share of the past 2 elections. So D+5 means on average Clinton and Obama got 5% more of the vote in that district than they got nationwide. So no a Biden +13 district probably wouldn't flip in a R+2 environment.

A Biden +13 district is not D+4.  It's roughly D+9 because Biden will finish 2020 at about +4 in the national popular vote.

A D+4 district would flip in a national environment that was R+7, because it would finish R+3 (4 pts to the left of the nation.)  That's literally what Cook PVI measures, lol 

[lfromnj]

D+4 or D+5 means on average Biden +12-14 although your latter point is mostly true.

A D+5 district would finish R+2 in a 2010-type environment (R+7)

D+4/D+5 means Cook PVI which means its vote share of the past 2 elections. So D+5 means on average Clinton and Obama got 5% more of the vote in that district than they got nationwide. So no a Biden +13 district probably wouldn't flip in a R+2 environment.

A Biden +13 district is not D+4.  It's roughly D+9 because Biden will finish 2020 at about +4 in the national popular vote.

A D+4 district would flip in a national environment that was R+7, because it would finish R+3 (4 pts to the left of the nation.)  That's literally what Cook PVI measures, lol  

No

"PVIs are calculated by comparing a congressional district's average Democratic or Republican Party share of the two-party presidential vote in the past two presidential elections to the national average share for those elections. For example, the national average for 2004 and 2008 was 51.2% Democratic to 48.8% Republican.[1] In Alaska's at-large congressional district, the Republican candidate won 63% and 61% of the two-party share in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, respectively. Comparing the average of these two district results (62%) against the average national share (48.8%), this district voted 13.2 percentage points more Republican than the country as a whole, or R+13.[citation needed]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index

[Del Tachi]

D+4 or D+5 means on average Biden +12-14 although your latter point is mostly true.

A D+5 district would finish R+2 in a 2010-type environment (R+7)

D+4/D+5 means Cook PVI which means its vote share of the past 2 elections. So D+5 means on average Clinton and Obama got 5% more of the vote in that district than they got nationwide. So no a Biden +13 district probably wouldn't flip in a R+2 environment.

A Biden +13 district is not D+4.  It's roughly D+9 because Biden will finish 2020 at about +4 in the national popular vote.

A D+4 district would flip in a national environment that was R+7, because it would finish R+3 (4 pts to the left of the nation.)  That's literally what Cook PVI measures, lol 

No

"PVIs are calculated by comparing a congressional district's average Democratic or Republican Party share of the two-party presidential vote in the past two presidential elections to the national average share for those elections. For example, the national average for 2004 and 2008 was 51.2% Democratic to 48.8% Republican.[1] In Alaska's at-large congressional district, the Republican candidate won 63% and 61% of the two-party share in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, respectively. Comparing the average of these two district results (62%) against the average national share (48.8%), this district voted 13.2 percentage points more Republican than the country as a whole, or R+13.[citation needed]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index

Nice copy and pasting skills, lol

Your conception of the PVI is wrong.  In a hypothetical 50/50 national election, all states/districts would vote their PVIs.  In a 2010-type environment where the GOP is winning the national popular vote by 7 points, then D+4 districts would be expected to finish around R+3.

To gut check this, just look at the districts around D+4 and think about how'd they vote in a 2010-style wave for the GOP.  NV-03, MI-05, IL-17, NY-03, etc would probably all flip.  CA-21 and FL-27 (other districts in this neighborhood) actually flipped in 2020!